Allow tools to specify a specific OS transport

[josalem]

Once dotnet/runtime#1600 is merged in, the runtime will be able to create the diagnostics server transport at a specific location. This change allows the tools to consume the path to a Unix Domain Socket or a specific Named Pipe.

Example: dotnet trace collect --transport-path /diagnostics/myapp.sock

The client library is also updated to allow for creating a DiagnosticsClient using a string (for path) instead of an int (for pid).

CC - @shirhatti@tommcdon

[noahfalk]

A little worried about the naming, but otherwise looks good : )

[shirhatti]

@josalem I remember us having a hallway conversation about using URIs for the address/transportPath (e.g., net.pipe://foo_pipe, unix://etc/foo/foo.sock)

Is that no longer being considered?

[josalem]

Is that no longer being considered?

We just chatted about it offline, but I wanted to document it here. Making this a URI is an implementation detail that we can tackle later without changing the name/functionality added here. So, for now, I'm going to leave it out, but we can certainly add it if we ever add more transports.

[noahfalk]

Making this a URI is an implementation detail

<Noah being pedantic>
Because it would affect the user interaction I'd label it a design detail, not an implementation detail. However I agree that it is not a design choice we are precluded from enabling in the future and it doesn't appear critical to enable it now.
<\Noah being pedantic>

[sywhang]

LGTM!

[josalem]

I'm closing this as the design of this feature has pivoted (see: dotnet/runtime#33307) a bit during development and this code needs to change accordingly.

[josalem]

Once dotnet/runtime#1600 is merged in, the runtime will be able to create the diagnostics server transport at a specific location. This change allows the tools to consume the path to a Unix Domain Socket or a specific Named Pipe.

Example: dotnet trace collect --transport-path /diagnostics/myapp.sock

The client library is also updated to allow for creating a DiagnosticsClient using a string (for path) instead of an int (for pid).

CC - @shirhatti@tommcdon

[noahfalk]

A little worried about the naming, but otherwise looks good : )

[shirhatti]

@josalem I remember us having a hallway conversation about using URIs for the address/transportPath (e.g., net.pipe://foo_pipe, unix://etc/foo/foo.sock)

Is that no longer being considered?

[josalem]

Is that no longer being considered?

We just chatted about it offline, but I wanted to document it here. Making this a URI is an implementation detail that we can tackle later without changing the name/functionality added here. So, for now, I'm going to leave it out, but we can certainly add it if we ever add more transports.

[noahfalk]

Making this a URI is an implementation detail

<Noah being pedantic>
Because it would affect the user interaction I'd label it a design detail, not an implementation detail. However I agree that it is not a design choice we are precluded from enabling in the future and it doesn't appear critical to enable it now.
<\Noah being pedantic>

[sywhang]

LGTM!

[josalem]

I'm closing this as the design of this feature has pivoted (see: dotnet/runtime#33307) a bit during development and this code needs to change accordingly.

[josalem]

Once dotnet/runtime#1600 is merged in, the runtime will be able to create the diagnostics server transport at a specific location. This change allows the tools to consume the path to a Unix Domain Socket or a specific Named Pipe.

Example: dotnet trace collect --transport-path /diagnostics/myapp.sock

The client library is also updated to allow for creating a DiagnosticsClient using a string (for path) instead of an int (for pid).

CC - @shirhatti@tommcdon

[noahfalk]

A little worried about the naming, but otherwise looks good : )

[shirhatti]

@josalem I remember us having a hallway conversation about using URIs for the address/transportPath (e.g., net.pipe://foo_pipe, unix://etc/foo/foo.sock)

Is that no longer being considered?

[josalem]

Is that no longer being considered?

We just chatted about it offline, but I wanted to document it here. Making this a URI is an implementation detail that we can tackle later without changing the name/functionality added here. So, for now, I'm going to leave it out, but we can certainly add it if we ever add more transports.

[noahfalk]

Making this a URI is an implementation detail

<Noah being pedantic>
Because it would affect the user interaction I'd label it a design detail, not an implementation detail. However I agree that it is not a design choice we are precluded from enabling in the future and it doesn't appear critical to enable it now.
<\Noah being pedantic>

[sywhang]

LGTM!

[josalem]

I'm closing this as the design of this feature has pivoted (see: dotnet/runtime#33307) a bit during development and this code needs to change accordingly.

[josalem]

Once dotnet/runtime#1600 is merged in, the runtime will be able to create the diagnostics server transport at a specific location. This change allows the tools to consume the path to a Unix Domain Socket or a specific Named Pipe.

Example: dotnet trace collect --transport-path /diagnostics/myapp.sock

The client library is also updated to allow for creating a DiagnosticsClient using a string (for path) instead of an int (for pid).

CC - @shirhatti@tommcdon

[noahfalk]

A little worried about the naming, but otherwise looks good : )

[shirhatti]

@josalem I remember us having a hallway conversation about using URIs for the address/transportPath (e.g., net.pipe://foo_pipe, unix://etc/foo/foo.sock)

Is that no longer being considered?

[josalem]

Is that no longer being considered?

We just chatted about it offline, but I wanted to document it here. Making this a URI is an implementation detail that we can tackle later without changing the name/functionality added here. So, for now, I'm going to leave it out, but we can certainly add it if we ever add more transports.

[noahfalk]

Making this a URI is an implementation detail

<Noah being pedantic>
Because it would affect the user interaction I'd label it a design detail, not an implementation detail. However I agree that it is not a design choice we are precluded from enabling in the future and it doesn't appear critical to enable it now.
<\Noah being pedantic>

[sywhang]

LGTM!

[josalem]

I'm closing this as the design of this feature has pivoted (see: dotnet/runtime#33307) a bit during development and this code needs to change accordingly.

[josalem]

Once dotnet/runtime#1600 is merged in, the runtime will be able to create the diagnostics server transport at a specific location. This change allows the tools to consume the path to a Unix Domain Socket or a specific Named Pipe.

Example: dotnet trace collect --transport-path /diagnostics/myapp.sock

The client library is also updated to allow for creating a DiagnosticsClient using a string (for path) instead of an int (for pid).

CC - @shirhatti@tommcdon

[noahfalk]

A little worried about the naming, but otherwise looks good : )

[shirhatti]

@josalem I remember us having a hallway conversation about using URIs for the address/transportPath (e.g., net.pipe://foo_pipe, unix://etc/foo/foo.sock)

Is that no longer being considered?

[josalem]

Is that no longer being considered?

We just chatted about it offline, but I wanted to document it here. Making this a URI is an implementation detail that we can tackle later without changing the name/functionality added here. So, for now, I'm going to leave it out, but we can certainly add it if we ever add more transports.

[noahfalk]

Making this a URI is an implementation detail

<Noah being pedantic>
Because it would affect the user interaction I'd label it a design detail, not an implementation detail. However I agree that it is not a design choice we are precluded from enabling in the future and it doesn't appear critical to enable it now.
<\Noah being pedantic>

[sywhang]

LGTM!

[josalem]

I'm closing this as the design of this feature has pivoted (see: dotnet/runtime#33307) a bit during development and this code needs to change accordingly.

[josalem]

Once dotnet/runtime#1600 is merged in, the runtime will be able to create the diagnostics server transport at a specific location. This change allows the tools to consume the path to a Unix Domain Socket or a specific Named Pipe.

Example: dotnet trace collect --transport-path /diagnostics/myapp.sock

The client library is also updated to allow for creating a DiagnosticsClient using a string (for path) instead of an int (for pid).

CC - @shirhatti@tommcdon

[noahfalk]

A little worried about the naming, but otherwise looks good : )

[shirhatti]

@josalem I remember us having a hallway conversation about using URIs for the address/transportPath (e.g., net.pipe://foo_pipe, unix://etc/foo/foo.sock)

Is that no longer being considered?

[josalem]

Is that no longer being considered?

We just chatted about it offline, but I wanted to document it here. Making this a URI is an implementation detail that we can tackle later without changing the name/functionality added here. So, for now, I'm going to leave it out, but we can certainly add it if we ever add more transports.

[noahfalk]

Making this a URI is an implementation detail

<Noah being pedantic>
Because it would affect the user interaction I'd label it a design detail, not an implementation detail. However I agree that it is not a design choice we are precluded from enabling in the future and it doesn't appear critical to enable it now.
<\Noah being pedantic>

[sywhang]

LGTM!

[josalem]

I'm closing this as the design of this feature has pivoted (see: dotnet/runtime#33307) a bit during development and this code needs to change accordingly.

[josalem]

Once dotnet/runtime#1600 is merged in, the runtime will be able to create the diagnostics server transport at a specific location. This change allows the tools to consume the path to a Unix Domain Socket or a specific Named Pipe.

Example: dotnet trace collect --transport-path /diagnostics/myapp.sock

The client library is also updated to allow for creating a DiagnosticsClient using a string (for path) instead of an int (for pid).

CC - @shirhatti@tommcdon

[noahfalk]

A little worried about the naming, but otherwise looks good : )

[shirhatti]

@josalem I remember us having a hallway conversation about using URIs for the address/transportPath (e.g., net.pipe://foo_pipe, unix://etc/foo/foo.sock)

Is that no longer being considered?

[josalem]

Is that no longer being considered?

We just chatted about it offline, but I wanted to document it here. Making this a URI is an implementation detail that we can tackle later without changing the name/functionality added here. So, for now, I'm going to leave it out, but we can certainly add it if we ever add more transports.

[noahfalk]

Making this a URI is an implementation detail

<Noah being pedantic>
Because it would affect the user interaction I'd label it a design detail, not an implementation detail. However I agree that it is not a design choice we are precluded from enabling in the future and it doesn't appear critical to enable it now.
<\Noah being pedantic>

[sywhang]

LGTM!

[josalem]

I'm closing this as the design of this feature has pivoted (see: dotnet/runtime#33307) a bit during development and this code needs to change accordingly.

[josalem]

Once dotnet/runtime#1600 is merged in, the runtime will be able to create the diagnostics server transport at a specific location. This change allows the tools to consume the path to a Unix Domain Socket or a specific Named Pipe.

Example: dotnet trace collect --transport-path /diagnostics/myapp.sock

The client library is also updated to allow for creating a DiagnosticsClient using a string (for path) instead of an int (for pid).

CC - @shirhatti@tommcdon

[noahfalk]

A little worried about the naming, but otherwise looks good : )

[shirhatti]

@josalem I remember us having a hallway conversation about using URIs for the address/transportPath (e.g., net.pipe://foo_pipe, unix://etc/foo/foo.sock)

Is that no longer being considered?

[josalem]

Is that no longer being considered?

We just chatted about it offline, but I wanted to document it here. Making this a URI is an implementation detail that we can tackle later without changing the name/functionality added here. So, for now, I'm going to leave it out, but we can certainly add it if we ever add more transports.

[noahfalk]

Making this a URI is an implementation detail

<Noah being pedantic>
Because it would affect the user interaction I'd label it a design detail, not an implementation detail. However I agree that it is not a design choice we are precluded from enabling in the future and it doesn't appear critical to enable it now.
<\Noah being pedantic>

[sywhang]

LGTM!

[josalem]

I'm closing this as the design of this feature has pivoted (see: dotnet/runtime#33307) a bit during development and this code needs to change accordingly.